Tolstoy Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 The Sporting News gave the Bills a D+ for the offseason--almost worst in the league. They cite the loss of Jennings and Williams. It just goes to show that these football pundits know nothing. Losman could have a great season, and the Bills are playoff material. On the other hand, Losman may not have a great, or even a good season, and the Bills are the same or worse than last year. In other words, it is just too difficult to say. I am just tired of reading speculation printed as intelligent forecasts. Let's get on with the damn season. Here's the link: Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 The Sporting News gave the Bills a D+ for the offseason--almost worst in the league. They cite the loss of Jennings and Williams. It just goes to show that these football pundits know nothing. Losman could have a great season, and the Bills are playoff material. On the other hand, Losman may not have a great, or even a good season, and the Bills are the same or worse than last year. In other words, it is just too difficult to say. I am just tired of reading speculation printed as intelligent forecasts. Let's get on with the damn season. Here's the link: Link 354849[/snapback] How are they going to be better withn the loss of Jennings of the O-line and Williams on the D-line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I dont think we are going to be better with the loss of those two, but I think Edwards/Anderson will basically grade out about equal on our D-Line. At least to the point where we wont notice any drop-off in the overall performance of our Defense as a unit. Losing Jennings is still a problem, considering we dont have a replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CentralVaBills Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 The Sporting News gave the Bills a D+ for the offseason--almost worst in the league. They cite the loss of Jennings and Williams. It just goes to show that these football pundits know nothing. Losman could have a great season, and the Bills are playoff material. On the other hand, Losman may not have a great, or even a good season, and the Bills are the same or worse than last year. In other words, it is just too difficult to say. I am just tired of reading speculation printed as intelligent forecasts. Let's get on with the damn season. Here's the link: Link 354849[/snapback] True, what could they possibly be thinking? The Bills losing their starting LT, and a very good DT and picking up basically nobody. What a bunch of morons over there at The Sporting News. What should they have gotten, a B+? Of course, by today's American standards where everyone has to be a winner, why not I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 perception: the bills lost a "stud" starting LT and picked up nobody to replace him; thus the OL will suck. reality: the bills did not re-sign a "good" LT who was grossly overpaid in free agency, and have a fantastic OL coach working with players already on the roster to find a replacement. the bills have CHOSEN to pass on several "name" LTs available through trade or free agency, suggesting that they are satisfied with the players they have. truth: nobody knows how the new LT will perform, but the rest of the OL looks damn solid. perception: the bills lost a "stud" DT who was the anchor of the defense and signed nobody to replace him; thus the defense will suck. reality: the bills did not re-sign a productive but aging player who wanted to get his big payday. they have several DTs on the roster who have been developing and could be ready to slide into williams' role. truth: buffalo loses 1 starter on a defense that was excellent. odds are that edwards and anderson fill in adequately for a player who was on the field roughly 2/3 of the time and the buffalo defense does not drop off. national media = rj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 True, what could they possibly be thinking? The Bills losing their starting LT, and a very good DT and picking up basically nobody. What a bunch of morons over there at The Sporting News. What should they have gotten, a B+? Of course, by today's American standards where everyone has to be a winner, why not I guess. 354890[/snapback] Yep.."everyones a winner" by Hot Chocolate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATBNG Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 The Sporting News gave the Bills a D+ for the offseason--almost worst in the league. They cite the loss of Jennings and Williams. I would take this for what it is - good news. All these publications do is count heads like camp counselors during free swim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I would take this for what it is - good news. All these publications do is count heads like camp counselors during free swim. 354903[/snapback] So, replacing two of our better players with scrubs is making the team better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CentralVaBills Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 perception: the bills lost a "stud" starting LT and picked up nobody to replace him; thus the OL will suck. reality: the bills did not re-sign a "good" LT who was grossly overpaid in free agency, and have a fantastic OL coach working with players already on the roster to find a replacement. the bills have CHOSEN to pass on several "name" LTs available through trade or free agency, suggesting that they are satisfied with the players they have. truth: nobody knows how the new LT will perform, but the rest of the OL looks damn solid. perception: the bills lost a "stud" DT who was the anchor of the defense and signed nobody to replace him; thus the defense will suck. reality: the bills did not re-sign a productive but aging player who wanted to get his big payday. they have several DTs on the roster who have been developing and could be ready to slide into williams' role. truth: buffalo loses 1 starter on a defense that was excellent. odds are that edwards and anderson fill in adequately for a player who was on the field roughly 2/3 of the time and the buffalo defense does not drop off. national media = rj 354901[/snapback] This is almost unbearable, but let's put another perpective on what you said. With a tad little less homerism in it. Although, let me preface these remarks, with, I'm not necessarily disappointed that we no longer have PW or JJ. However the article GRADES THE BILLS OFF-SEASON. But let's stick to your format..... Perception: The bills lost a very capable starting LT and picked up nobody to replace him; thus, the very average OL will take another step backward, especially protecting the blind side of a rookie QB. A different perspective on reality: The bills did not re-sign a pretty good LT who was overpaid in free agency, and have a fantastic OL coach working with players already on the roster to find a replacement. The only option besides shuffling an already average line is Gandy. Gandy couldn't stick in Chicago, a team with one of the worst O-Line's in football, and one of the worst teams in the NFL period. Coaches can be very helpful, but if he has a player that is a stiff, there's only so much he can do. Different Truth: Nobody knows how the new LT will perform, although the replacement was a struggling scrub who played on one of the worst teams in the NFL. The rest of the OL is very average outside of an improving Mike Williams. New signee Benny Anderson is also a castoff from Baltimore who is said to be lacking in everything but straight ahead run blocking. However, because Anderson does runblock well, he is the kind of candidate McNally can really turn around. Chances are though, Gandy isn't. Different perception: The bills lost a damn good DT who was very good alongside Sam Adams making the tandem one of the best in the league, and signed nobody to replace him. Many think the defense may be vulnerable in the middle with basically two unknowns being called upon and Sam Adams yet another year older in age. The overall defensive unit should remain the teams strength again this year, however. Different Reality: Having Fat Sam and Big Pat was very comforting to all Bills fans. Both Adams and Williams had flashes of dominating games on their own. Both are getting up there in age, espcially considering their terrible physical condition, and what kind of shape they are in. That should make the aging process a little bit faster. However, the two guys that are "developing" are basically unknowns and aren't highly touted prospects by anyone outside of the Bills org. As a matter of fact, one of them is a former starter who couldn't hold down the job before. Here's hoping one of them are ready now. Truth: Buffalo loses 1 starter on a defense that was pretty damn good except for some bad lapses in a couple of crunch times. Odds are that Edwards and Anderson can fill in adequately for a player who was on the field roughly 2/3 of the time and the buffalo defense does not drop off that much. Although, the run stuffing middle of the D-Line, which had lapses sometimes last year, will no longer be a strength of the team. It looks like the strength of this team is it's secondary and LB's corp, while it's DL may have a couple of holes, especially if Fat Sam starts to show his age. Just a little different opinion on things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 This is almost unbearable, but let's put another perpective on what you said. With a tad little less homerism in it. Although, let me preface these remarks, with, I'm not necessarily disappointed that we no longer have PW or JJ. However the article GRADES THE BILLS OFF-SEASON. But let's stick to your format..... Perception: The bills lost a very capable starting LT and picked up nobody to replace him; thus, the very average OL will take another step backward, especially protecting the blind side of a rookie QB. A different perspective on reality: The bills did not re-sign a pretty good LT who was overpaid in free agency, and have a fantastic OL coach working with players already on the roster to find a replacement. The only option besides shuffling an already average line is Gandy. Gandy couldn't stick in Chicago, a team with one of the worst O-Line's in football, and one of the worst teams in the NFL period. Coaches can be very helpful, but if he has a player that is a stiff, there's only so much he can do. Different Truth: Nobody knows how the new LT will perform, although the replacement was a struggling scrub who played on one of the worst teams in the NFL. The rest of the OL is very average outside of an improving Mike Williams. New signee Benny Anderson is also a castoff from Baltimore who is said to be lacking in everything but straight ahead run blocking. However, because Anderson does runblock well, he is the kind of candidate McNally can really turn around. Chances are though, Gandy isn't. Different perception: The bills lost a damn good DT who was very good alongside Sam Adams making the tandem one of the best in the league, and signed nobody to replace him. Many think the defense may be vulnerable in the middle with basically two unknowns being called upon and Sam Adams yet another year older in age. The overall defensive unit should remain the teams strength again this year, however. Different Reality: Having Fat Sam and Big Pat was very comforting to all Bills fans. Both Adams and Williams had flashes of dominating games on their own. Both are getting up there in age, espcially considering their terrible physical condition, and what kind of shape they are in. That should make the aging process a little bit faster. However, the two guys that are "developing" are basically unknowns and aren't highly touted prospects by anyone outside of the Bills org. As a matter of fact, one of them is a former starter who couldn't hold down the job before. Here's hoping one of them are ready now. Truth: Buffalo loses 1 starter on a defense that was pretty damn good except for some bad lapses in a couple of crunch times. Odds are that Edwards and Anderson can fill in adequately for a player who was on the field roughly 2/3 of the time and the buffalo defense does not drop off that much. Although, the run stuffing middle of the D-Line, which had lapses sometimes last year, will no longer be a strength of the team. It looks like the strength of this team is it's secondary and LB's corp, while it's DL may have a couple of holes, especially if Fat Sam starts to show his age. Just a little different opinion on things. 354914[/snapback] I agree with all of that for sure. The Bills offseason was um........how do I put this.....oh yeah.........POOR. Glad we addressed the left tackle and defensive tackle spots in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolstoy Posted June 10, 2005 Author Share Posted June 10, 2005 Perhaps I am prejudiced by my partiality towards the Bills, but I have to say that if I were the Patriots, Dolphins, or Jets, I would be more worried about playing Buffalo now. It is not the addition of Roscoe Parrish, or a set of healthy tight ends, or another year of the line under a good line coach, or a Willis McGahee who now has one year under his belt--it is the fact that we have a young, mobile QB where we once had Bledsoe. Other teams did not fear Bledsoe. They thought that with pressure, they could neutralize his arm. They were right. With Losman, an unknown, they are not going to be able to tee-off and blitz. Losing two starters is just not that big of a deal. NE loses more starting players than that every year (whether to injury of free agency), and still returns to the Superbowl. Do you really think that the Bills aren't going to be a better team this year, compared to last year? The subtraction of Bledsoe, and the addition of Losman itself merits an offseason grade of B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 TSN = RJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Perhaps I am prejudiced by my partiality towards the Bills, but I have to say that if I were the Patriots, Dolphins, or Jets, I would be more worried about playing Buffalo now. It is not the addition of Roscoe Parrish, or a set of healthy tight ends, or another year of the line under a good line coach, or a Willis McGahee who now has one year under his belt--it is the fact that we have a young, mobile QB where we once had Bledsoe. Other teams did not fear Bledsoe. They thought that with pressure, they could neutralize his arm. They were right. With Losman, an unknown, they are not going to be able to tee-off and blitz. Losing two starters is just not that big of a deal. NE loses more starting players than that every year (whether to injury of free agency), and still returns to the Superbowl. Do you really think that the Bills aren't going to be a better team this year, compared to last year? The subtraction of Bledsoe, and the addition of Losman itself merits an offseason grade of B. 354973[/snapback] Why would they be more worried now? Buffalo's problem according to Bill B. is that their "line is for s..t". Losing JJ and adding a couple of rejects from crappy teams isn't likely to change that. We had healthy tight ends last year for most of the year. If you think BB is cowering in fear over facing a virtual rookie QB rather than Bledsoe or anyone else, you need to pass that bong. We made no bones of the fact that we were going to run, run and run some more last year and in response, defenses put 7 or 8 in the box to stuff the run on first down. Our line was not strong enough then nor is it now, to gain yards against a defense playing the run. With all those guys in the box, they would just blitz when we didn't run knowing that our line would not pick it up or Drew would be forced to check down to a receiver running a 5 yard pattern on 3rd and 11 which, in football language, spells: p-u-n-t. This obsession with quarterback "mobility" as the holy grail of offensive productivity and the lack of it as the cause of everything from holding penalties to global warming has got to stop. Football games are won or lost in the trenches. If you defense stinks, it is usually because your defensive line stinks. If your offense stinks, it is usually because your offensive line stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 How can you put the Raiders at full throttle for adding Randy Moss while putting the Vikings there also after they lost him? What kind of moronic logic is this? We lose two supporting players while the Vikings lost a franchise player. Yet they are at full throttle???? Whatever...articles like this scream that NFL writers are desperate for material now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 What about the drafting of Losman two months ago? TD will be ticked off that they didn't take that into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 It looks like they were pretty tough on most teams. The good thing I see is that the majority of our competion got sub-par grades. Oh, and I agree with them than KC has had a very good offseason. They could do some damage if they stay healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 All these publications do is count heads like camp counselors during free swim. 354903[/snapback] MWAAA! That's classic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 perception: the bills lost a "stud" starting LT and picked up nobody to replace him; thus the OL will suck. reality: the bills did not re-sign a "good" LT who was grossly overpaid in free agency, and have a fantastic OL coach working with players already on the roster to find a replacement. the bills have CHOSEN to pass on several "name" LTs available through trade or free agency, suggesting that they are satisfied with the players they have. truth: nobody knows how the new LT will perform, but the rest of the OL looks damn solid. perception: the bills lost a "stud" DT who was the anchor of the defense and signed nobody to replace him; thus the defense will suck. reality: the bills did not re-sign a productive but aging player who wanted to get his big payday. they have several DTs on the roster who have been developing and could be ready to slide into williams' role. truth: buffalo loses 1 starter on a defense that was excellent. odds are that edwards and anderson fill in adequately for a player who was on the field roughly 2/3 of the time and the buffalo defense does not drop off. national media = rj 354901[/snapback] BINGO!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sen. John Blutarsky Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 So, replacing two of our better players with scrubs is making the team better? 354906[/snapback] Here are 2 DTs from our roster last year DT #1 Had 21 tackles, 15 solo, 4 sacks and 2 tackles for loss in 11 games DT #2 had 53 tackles, 43 solo, 3 sacks and 7 tackles for loss in 15 games Here's the caveat, DT #2 had 12 tackles, 8 solos and a sack in 1 game. Was our defense dominating that day? No, it was week 17 against the Steelers when they ran up and down the field against us. If you subtract that 1 game DT #2's stats become 41 tackles, 35 solo and 2 sacks over 14 games. DT #1 averaged 1.9 tackles, 1.4 solos, and .36 sacks per game DT #2 averaged 2.9 tackles, 2.5 solos, and .14 sacks per game (subtracting week 17) So DT #2 averaged about 1 tackle more per game than DT #1. Obviously DT #1 is Ron Edwards and DT #2 is Pat Williams. Take into account that Williams was a starter and saw the field way more often than Edwards where is the huge dropoff in production? Do you not think that Ron Edwards can bring 1 more tackle to the field with more playing time? I'd also like to point out that the reason Sam Adams made the Pro Bowl last year was because he got benched during Miami game #1 in favor of Ron Edwards. After that game Adams was an unholy beast to block for the rest of the season because he had to compete for his playing time with Edwards, if he didn't perform he was gonna sit. Edwards may not be as well known as Williams but don't call him a scrub. He was just as productive last year and is 6 years younger than Pat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Yep.."everyones a winner" by Hot Chocolate 354902[/snapback] That's the truth. That's the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts